State v. Ribita
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Ribita, 2012-Ohio-6080.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- KEIRSTON RIBITA : : : : : : : : : JUDGES: Sheila G. Farmer, P.J. John W. Wise, J. Julie A. Edwards, J. Case No. 2012 CA 00112 OPINION Defendant-Appellant CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from Stark County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 2011-CR-1788 JUDGMENT: Affirmed DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 17, 2012 APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant JOHN D. FERRERO Prosecuting Attorney Stark County, Ohio APRIL R. BIBLE Stark County Public Defender s Office 200 W. Tuscarawas Street, N.W. Suite 200 Canton, Ohio 44702 BY: RENEE M. WATSON Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Appellate Section 110 Central Plaza, South Suite 510 Canton, Ohio 44702 [Cite as State v. Ribita, 2012-Ohio-6080.] Edwards, J. {¶1} Appellant, Keirston Ribita, appeals a judgment of the Stark County Common Pleas Court convicting her of domestic violence (R.C. 2919.25(A)) upon a plea of guilty and sentencing her to 36 months incarceration. Appellee is the State of Ohio. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE {¶2} On January 9, 2012, appellant was indicted by the Stark County grand jury on one count of felony domestic violence. According to the bill of particulars, appellant drug her 12-year-old daughter by her hair and hit her, leaving a welt on her arm and a bruise on her leg. {¶3} The case proceeded to jury trial. Midway through trial, appellant entered a plea of guilty to the charge. {¶4} After meeting with counsel and appellant s caseworker, the court placed terms and conditions on appellant s bond pending her next court appearance. Appellant was to go to the crisis center, and if they did not keep her for the evening, she was to appear at pretrial release the next morning where she would be taken into custody and transported to the jail, awaiting a bed at the community correction facility. {¶5} The crisis center did not keep appellant. The next morning, she and her caseworker appeared at the building where the pretrial release office is located. However, appellant did not go inside the building. Instead, she took a handful of pills and ran. The caseworker called for an ambulance and appellant spent two days in the psychiatric ward of Aultman Hospital. Stark County App. Case No. 2012-CA-00112 {¶6} 3 On May 7, 2012, the court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of her bond and revoked her bond. He sentenced her to 36 months incarceration. She assigns a single error on appeal: {¶7} THE IMPOSITION OF THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE BY THE TRIAL COURT WAS CLEARLY AND CONVINCINGLY CONTRARY TO LAW AND AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION. {¶8} The Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008 Ohio 4912, 896 N.E.2d 124 set forth a two step process for examining felony sentences. The first step is to examine the sentencing court's compliance with all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence to determine whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. Kalish at ¶ 4. If this first step is satisfied, the second step requires the trial court's decision be reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. {¶9} In sentencing appellant, the trial court noted that appellant violated the court s order by not going inside once she appeared with her caseworker at pretrial release, and instead took action that required her to be hospitalized. Appellant argues that she did not willfully violate the terms of her bond because she made herself available to appear at pretrial release as ordered by the court, and everyone was aware that she was potentially unstable and suicidal. {¶10} However, appellant did not comply with the court s order. Rather than appearing at pretrial release, she came to the building, took a handful of pills and ran off. Nothing in the record supports her claim that she suffered from mental health Stark County App. Case No. 2012-CA-00112 4 issues that prevented her from complying with the court s order. The court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing her to the maximum sentence. {¶11} The assignment of error is overruled. {¶12} The judgment of the Stark County Common Pleas Court is affirmed. By: Edwards, J. Farmer, P.J. and Wise, J. concur ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ JUDGES JAE/r1114 [Cite as State v. Ribita, 2012-Ohio-6080.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vsKEIRSTON RIBITA Defendant-Appellant : : : : : : : : : : JUDGMENT ENTRY CASE NO. 2012-CA-00112 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file, the judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs assessed to appellant. _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ JUDGES
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
